United Liberty

Though this was written before the Health Care Summit between Democrats and Republicans, George Will defense of the filibuster as a sound constitutional principle needed to be posted:

Some liberals argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Their reasoning is a non sequitur: The Constitution empowers each chamber to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” It requires five supermajorities (for ratifying treaties, endorsing constitutional amendments, overriding vetoes, expelling members and impeachment convictions). Therefore it does not permit requiring a sixth, to end filibusters.
[…]
“Great innovations,” said Jefferson, “should not be forced on slender majorities.” Hence Barack Obama recently embraced a supermajority mechanism: The 18-member commission he created to recommend measures to reduce the deficit requires that any recommendation be endorsed by 14 members.

Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers — government by adding machine. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly?

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and always well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” - Thomas Jefferson

David Boaz has written a great post explaining why selective taxation, like we saw yesterday as the House passed a 90% tax on AIG bonuses, is a form of tyranny:

Big extravagant events like presidential speeches to Congress are something I find unappealing. As a writer and a bigger fan of radio than television, I tend to gravitate towards smaller, one on one human reactions. It would be preferable to me if presidents addressed the people in less ceremonial fashion, in front of a camera, where they would be less likely to get caught up in the desire for adoration, more likely to be candid and less likely to say just what will get cheers.

President Obama, like other presidents, probably has a far different disposition than myself on such matters. I imagine that someone who would run for president has a massive sense of ego and wants to be liked. Nevertheless, these massive coronations that every president takes part in seem much more like something that would occur in the Ottoman Empire or Victorian England than the Land of the Free. All the “pomp and circumstance,” as a friend called it, is mildly disgusting.

In honor of Presidents Day, CSPAN released the results of their poll asking who is the best president in American history.  Not surprisingly, Abraham Lincoln (once again) topped the chart, but the regular last place finisher, Andrew Johnson, was replaced today by the last president born in the 18th century, James Buchanan.

Why is he considered the worst president?  Reading through several sources, it appears that President Buchanan is seen as the man who could have stopped the War Between the States (or Mr. Lincoln’s War, as it’s known here in the South).  His “lack of action” is what earns him last place.

Conflict in the Middle East has been part of mankind’s history for many millenia now, and it’s hard to imagine that peace will ever prevail in this tumultuous part of the world.  The land occupied by the modern states of Israel and Palestine is arguably the most fought over piece of real estate on earth, with many groups claiming historical and religious precedence to its soil.

The current conflict between Israel’s government and Palestine’s Hamas has sparked the usual war of words between the spin-doctors of the warring countries, with political pundits across the globe chiming in with their take on the matter.  Each group has a convincing argument, and most citizens of the world are decidedly on one side or the other.

While most American’s may wonder which side to take, advice from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson begs the question “Should we take any side at all?”